Or is it a case of those in charge escaping from their mistakes and responsibilities?
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro - 2008-07-15 @ 12:38:35
-
-
safriz
- http://www.conspiror.blog.co.uk
- 2008-07-15 @ 12:49:35
and too many teenage and immature single mums,who themselves are children and can't teach much to their kids.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2008-07-15 @ 13:10:46
I don't think that would be a problem if the parent(s) had been taught properly. Unfotunately, that means we're probably 2 generations away from a likely fix to this problem.
Tom. -
-
-
soyunperdedor
Pro - http://soyunperdedor.blog.co.uk
- 2008-07-15 @ 14:01:36
Incredibly generalised, don't you think? I ahve a lot of contact with single mums who gad their children quite young, who have been wonderful mothers, with children they are proud of.
-
-
-
-
-
boredrich
- 2008-07-15 @ 13:09:42
scary isnt it the kids these days have no respect at all and their parents are just as bad!
-
-
-
grumpus
Pro - http://grumpus.blog.co.uk
- 2008-07-15 @ 19:16:13
The cartoon is spot on. It shows a fat, ugly, loud-mouthed, inappropriately tatooed parent, the kind I see all the time in the cheaper supermarkets, teaching a child that everyone else is to blame for their problems, and the only way to live is by cheating, stealing and pushing everybody else aside.
Before he even becomes a teenager he will know how to avoid work, milk the benefits system, take whatever he wants from others and leave them to clear up the filthy mess he leaves wherever he goes.
And before you say it, it's NOT down to single mothers! Many young mums, made pregnant by irresponsible young men and then abandoned, struggle and work hard to bring up their children properly.
The government announced today that they are aware of 110,000 problem families across the UK where the parenting is so bad that the children are in danger of becoming long-term criminals. The question is: How do you sort that out? -
-
-
joebangles
- 2008-07-15 @ 22:44:17
Those parents that don't give a damn about their offspring will never change.
Kids must be taught that carrying a knife is against the law.
The penalty already exists, four years in prison, use it every time and make prison a place that they will never want to return to.
The word will soon get around that it's not worthwhile. -
-
-
MonkeyPie
- 2008-07-16 @ 09:01:49
It's not accurate enough- there's a definite lack of expletives in the speech. The ratio ought to be 2:1(expletives
ther words)
I agree with Grumpus- don't lay the blame at young mothers/single mothers. An unstable family life has a small part to play but I suspect it's more complex than that. I know plenty of single mothers who have angels for kids and conversely, nuclear families with little shits for kids (sorry there's no other way to describe them).
Interestingly, a family friend with a nice, stable family already, adopted two children- they'd both been born from 'difficult' families and then eventually adopted after the parents were deemed unsuitable. Adopted at too young an age to remember being adopted, they were integrated into the family and treated the exact same as the biological offspring. Where the 'real' children have excelled at school, the adopted boy has shown signs of disinterest and is no experiementing heavily with drugs and the girl, at 16, is pregnant* (mirroring their biological parents according to their files). *this doesnt make her a problem, i'm just using her as an example that it's not wholly circumstance but perhaps it is genetic that makes children act to a non-ideal.
It has been suggested that part of the cause is biological- the mother having a low IQ (plays a part in both nature and nuture- she's not likely to encourage them by example) and that 40% of problem children have ADHD and are just bored.
Make of that what you will.-
- 2008-07-16 @ 23:21:51
Hi monkeypie,
A question ....although they were too young to remember being adopted, were they aware they were adopted?
This awareness in itself could have impacted negatively on the outcomes for the adopted children as compared to the birth children.
I do believe that we cannot simply compare in this way as for two birth children in the same family there could be vastly differing outcomes, and often are(in families from less and from more privileged backgrounds).
Even if the adopted children were not aware i also believe that there could have been subtle differences in interaction etc. However biology of course would also have some impact...in many varied ways not simply genetics...diet of mother in pregnancy, temprament, birth trauma, premature birth....I could go on but I won't. There are just so many variables aren't there?
What a brilliant cartoon.-
-
MonkeyPie
- 2008-07-17 @ 08:21:40
Good question- they were aware that they were adopted yes. I accept that this may have affected them negatively although their adopted parents were careful to not treat them any differently. Perhaps there were slight differences in behaviour which they couldn't help, I'm not an expert in behavioural science!
The point that I was trying to make was rather that, according to their files, they were mirroring the actions of their biological parents without ever having known them. I think it's an interesting argument for the nature vs nuture crowd that there is such a thing as genetic memory. To draw a parallel (i'm not suggesting that these particular children are difficult, they're in their own ways, model citizens) genetic memory perhaps can be extended to an individual's disrespect of society.
I'm not suggesting it's always the case, it just seems to be that a staggeringly high proportion of these difficult families have, in turn, difficult children and rarely have a 'non-difficult' one. The government is attempting to help by assuming it's circumstance and nuture that breeds these antisocial, violent children but I don't believe it can be wholly attributed to that and that we must concede that it's partly biological. Which would also explain why you sometimes get vastly differing outcomes within a family. If they're treated the same and yet one ends up thinking it's appropriate to stab people in the face and the other is appalled at such behaviour, then I think it's more likely to be a character (therefore genetic) difference.
I also think that problem children have been neglected since a young age. Not necessarily by parents but by prejudice and society in general. Only the most hardened badly behaved will not respond to praise for their good actions as opposed to admonishment for their continual bad. The solution is not to invest a small sum of money into their quality of life. I don't think, in this case, it's something which can be bought.-
-
grumpus
Pro
- http://grumpus.blog.co.uk
- 2008-07-17 @ 15:03:46
The Nature vs. Nurture debate is interesting. If a problem child results from nurture, ie., bad parenting, or association with the wrong people, theoretically the problem could be resolved within a generation by a combination of punishment, training, and/or therapy etc.
If however, nature is to blame, ie., the antisocial behaviour is genetic, then surely the bad genes have always existed in that thread of ancestry, and no amount of pressure or persuasion will ever make any difference. Unless ...?
How does everyone feel about rounding up the 110,000 chav families that Gordon Brown says exist in the UK, and subjecting them to a bit of genetic engineering? Could solve a lot of problems within a decade or two.-
-
MonkeyPie
- 2008-07-18 @ 08:37:57
Surely they used to be sent to Australia?
But yes! Social genetic engineering! Very PC... -
-
-
-
DominicGee
- 2008-07-17 @ 15:48:27
I feel that people are products of their environment. Genetics only accounts for a small amount of our behaviour and certain propensities in my opinion.
It would be ridiculous to think that I would still have gone to university had I been born on a council estate in Newcastle and raised by a near illiterate mother.
You can't have your cake and eat it. In theory you could be right about genetics, but you argue that it must be genetic because (a) adopted children from deprived backrounds still 'revert' to their anti-social roots (implying that the behaviour is genetic) and (b) within a family, there are those who act completely different from their siblings and peers, showing that it's not the environment but genetics.
But surely as the first example shows, genetics means you follow your parents. So where does the good behaviour in the second example come from? Did he get his behaviour from a so-far unidentified gene? But if that is the case you are no closer to the answer than I am - it could be genetic, but as there are so many different genes involved, either outcome (good or bad) is possible.
The other problem I have with this argument (without trying to be a hippy) is that it implies that the rich or better educated somehow act 'better'. No, they may not be vandalizing phone boxes and attacking pensioners, but they exploit many people in this country, do very little to help the poor and live in a world where luxeries are taken for granted while the poor are left to fight amongst themselves.
Watch the film 'Trading Places'. It sums up the entire argument while also being fucking funny.
Thanks for contributing too. I was almost convinced...-
-
MonkeyPie
- 2008-07-18 @ 09:37:29
Ah but within genetics are complex factors. Whereas one offspring might inherit all the bad tendencies, its sibling might inherit a slightly 'calmer' gene or something. My limited understanding of genetics is that you can inherit a tendency to something and then when the environment is right, it's allowed to develop. Much like CJD- you only develop it if your genetic makeup says you're susceptible to it.
So, the adopted kids had a tendency inherited from their parents which perhaps didn't require circumstance or maybe, as nearlyeddie pointed out, their adopted parents' behaviour towards them was subtley different which triggered this tendency.
If both parents have a particular gene, the chances of the offsrping having it are multiplied, however, there is always a chance ti won't get it. So you end up with families of tearaways with perhaps one rough diamond who won't be 'bad'. In that sort of background, it takes an exceptionally special type of character to work against all the negative factors and to find a good role model.
I think most of these kids are not inherently bad- most are from circumstance and need a good role model- a constant one. But some are beyond help but need t be discouraged from such violent behaviour.
I agree, you get bad eggs in the more 'middle class' sector as well. They tend to be fewer because mater and pater can afford croquet lessons and horseriding to keep them entertained. They lash out in a different way- instead of kniving someone either out of desperation, boredom or some warped sense of 'honour' they buy drugs, judge and extort.
I think there's very little selflessness left in the UK. No one is truly altruistic and people are rarely respectful towards others. I think it's due to the 80s 'me first' fashion and the emphasis on 'rights' as opposed to duties.
If these kids were truly desperate, I'd empathise, but they're just not being treated like kicked dogs, so they ought not to behave like one. So yeah.. stems from a tendency towards boredom and it's encouraged through a skewed education of morals in which the first commandment is "Thou shalt take what you think you deserve, who cares if it's an old lady's pension/life/dignity"
It all conflicts with my bleeding hearts liberalism!! I shall watch that film, it sounds like a good time
-
-
-
-
When an individual does something, they are solely responsible for it unless they were forced or coerced into doing it. But, wider society and government must take responsibility for the prevailing conditions that made the person decide to do what they did.
I think these are some of the contributory factors:
The widening gap between rich and poor
Increasing ghettoization of cities
Desertion of town and city centres by business
Culture of handout and expectation
Absence of harsh sentences for violent crime
Lack of moral teaching
Tom.